Ehhhhnnnn... personally, I'm not sure that many people can tell the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4, if they were presented with a random assortment of images and then asked to identify the aperture setting on each. The more noticeable difference is in the quality of the bokeh, which does not have a direct correlation with maximum aperture.

The only native f/1.2 glass for Nikons that I know of offhand are the NIKKOR 50mm f/1.2 (still being manufactured new), the 55mm f/1.2 (long since retired), and the Noct-NIKKOR 58mm f/1.2 (retired, and exorbitantly priced but much loved by most who shoot with it).

Just a few of my favourites with the 50mm f/1.2 AI-s wide open on my D700. I think this makes for a wonderful combo for low light shooting and depth of field play.

going to leitax and seeing what they support be a good place to start. More known and respected lens conversion supplier.

the bokeh you might find you like or don't. Wide open the 1.2 has a certain character to it. Same can be said for the 35 1.4 AIS since all we had before the G release and the othe MF 35 1.4's of late. Some will dig, some won't.

Also the 1.2 can present a fun challenge if your thing as it can work your dof skills as its razor thin.

taob wrote:
Ehhhhnnnn... personally, I'm not sure that many people can tell the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4, if they were presented with a random assortment of images and then asked to identify the aperture setting on each. The more noticeable difference is in the quality of the bokeh, which does not have a direct correlation with maximum aperture.

In the case of the 50 f/1.2 AIS versus the f/1.4, they appear to have noticeably different rendering styles when shot wide open. I think that's what folks are willing to pay a premium for, not just more light-gathering ability.